Two Cultures: Blog# 4

With this reading, "Two Cultures-Television versus Print", we are presented with a different format, a dialogue between two scholars. This is the perfect way to present two opposing points of view on television and written culture. Paglia takes a more positive view of television, while Postman takes a more negative view. The two discuss the effects of these mediums on today's culture.

I found I agreed more with Paglia's view on television. While I did agree with some of Postman's points, he seemed to have incredibly pessimistic opinions of it. One thing I found I really agreed with on Postman's side however, was the thing about the Hebrew National hot dogs. It makes sense that using a figure like god in a commercial for something like hot dogs could really suck the meaning out of that figure. However, I would have reacted to it more like Paglia, who didn't seem to take it that seriously. As said in the reading, a contributing factor in this difference of opinions could be the age difference in the two. Postman was born before TV. really became popular, so his generation adjusted to it as it came about. Baby boomers and on were born with television.

This also brings me back to Paglia's point about watching TV. and multitasking. She says that "Baby boomers have a multilayered, multitrack ability to deal with the the world."(287) This goes along with her comparison of the madness of TV. and life alike. Postman looks at television as more of a flash of images that distracts from life. This view of television, that it makes you stupid, or that it's meaningless, and reading in comparison, that it will make you smarter, seems popular today. However I find that some books can be just as meaningless as a trashy show, and that some television shows can be rather fulfilling to watch.

Another point that was brought up in the conversation that really resonated with me was when Postman bought up tragedy on television. He seemed so concerned that a tragedy could be reported on the news and in an instant it could flash to some meaningless commercial. It is something I have often thought about. If it weren't for television, most people wouldn't have human tragedy in their daily lives. How often does one encounter or participate in a car accident? How often does one see one on the news with moving images rather than read about it in a newspaper in tiny black and white print? If we let things reported on the news get to us emotionally we would be a much different society, in ways I can't really imagine. Furthermore, because the television contains moving images and images of real people with expressions, more homage is paid to a tragedy on TV. than in a newspaper or magazine that can also have a huge advertisement for slacks next to it.

All of these arguments go back to trying to figure out what the more perfect medium is, the written word or pictures symbolizing the written word. In the end I really don't even think it comes down to that. I think it all depends on how each one is used and how well it is created. Like it is said in the reading, during a certain time in Europe the arts flourished in the south and intellectualism grew in the north. Who's to say the arts weren't as valuable as the developments that came about in the north? The written word is certainly more useful for certain things, however I don't it is the "perfect medium" as Postman puts it. Some thing can be conveyed better through writing, some through moving images. It seems to me that the two shouldn't be pit against each other but in categories of their own.